New gTLD Program
Community Priority Evaluation Report
Report Date: 8 April 2016
Application ID:
Applied-for String:
Applicant Name:

1-1309-46695
KIDS
DotKids Foundation Limited

Overall Community Priority Evaluation Summary
Community Priority Evaluation Result
Did Not Prevail
Thank you for your participation in the New gTLD Program. After careful consideration and extensive
review of the information provided in your application, including documents of support, the Community
Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application did not meet the requirements specified in the
Applicant Guidebook. Your application did not prevail in Community Priority Evaluation.
Your application may still resolve string contention through the other methods as described in Module 4 of
the Applicant Guidebook.
Panel Summary
Overall Scoring

6 Point(s)Criteria#1: Community Establishment#2: Nexus between Proposed String and Community#3: Registration Policies#4: Community Endorsement
Total

Earned00336Achievable
4
4
4
4
16

Minimum Required Total Score to Pass 14

Criterion #1: Community Establishment
0/4 Point(s)1-A Delineation
0/2 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the community as defined by the application did
not meet the criterion for Delineation as specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria)of the Applicant Guidebook (AGB), as the community defined in the application does not demonstratesufficient delineation, organization, or pre-existence. The application received a score of 0 out of 2 points
under criterion 1-A: Delineation.
Delineation
Two conditions must be met to fulfill the requirements for delineation: there must be a clear, straightforward
membership definition and there must be awareness and recognition of a community (as defined by theapplicant) among its members.
The community defined in the application is (Section 20A):
Page 1

“On top of kids in the community, consistent with Children Rights approach, the kids community
does not exist independently and is supported by those who are no longer kids but are intricately
involved with the primary beneficiaries:
1) Kids: Defined by the UNCRC convention, a child means every human being below the age ofeighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier
2) Charities, non-government organizations and government institutions that work on the well-beingof children. This also includes the alliances that promotes [sic] causes that promote the well-being ofchildren3) Parents and educators: As a matter of fact, they constitute a large part of and have a huge impact
on a child’s growth.
4) Educational institutions, organizations and operations that are primarily serving children.”This community definition does not delineate a clear and straightforward membership, as the AGB requires.
The membership of the proposed community includes kids, which are a clearly delineated group of “every
human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained
earlier”. Parents of children are similarly well defined. However, the two other membership categories
depend on individuals’ and entities’ support for kids and those who are “intricately involved with the primary
beneficiaries [i.e. kids]”, but this definition is dispersed and unbound, and not clear and straightforward, as
the AGB requires for delineation. Moreover, the application does not clearly define the other two
membership categories. For example, “Government institutions that work on the well-being of children” isunclear and unbound. This category could include a ministry of education and/or a state or provincial level
health care service aimed at children and young people. Given the lack of clarity around these membershipparameters, the Panel has determined that the membership definition provided in the application is unboundand dispersed.
In addition, according to the AGB, “community” implies “more of cohesion than a mere commonality ofinterest,” and there should be “an awareness and recognition of a community among its members.” Thecommunity as defined in the application does not demonstrate an awareness and recognition among its
members. The application materials and further research provide no substantive evidence of what the AGB
calls “cohesion” – that is, that the various members of the community as defined by the application are“united or form a whole” (Oxford Dictionaries).
While the Panel acknowledges that many of these individuals and entities would share a “commonality ofinterest” in kids, according to the AGB this is not sufficient to demonstrate the requisite awareness andrecognition of a community among its members. While individuals within some of the member categories
may show cohesion within a category or across a subset of the member categories, the number of individuals
and entities included in the defined community that do not show such cohesion is considerable enough thatthe community defined as a whole cannot be said to have the cohesion required by the AGB. For example, astate government institution focused on children’s health does not have a demonstrable awareness andrecognition of a community with a charity focused on children’s literacy, although they may have acommonality of interest generally in children’s well-being.
The Panel therefore determined that there is insufficient awareness and recognition of a community among
the proposed community members, and that they do not therefore cohere as a community, as required by the
AGB. The defined community as a whole, in all its member categories, does not meet the AGB’s
requirement for community awareness and recognition. Therefore, the Panel determined that the community
as defined in the application satisfies neither of the two conditions to fulfill the requirements for delineation,and therefore does not receive credit for delineation.
Organization
Two conditions must be met to fulfill the requirements for organization: there must be at least one entity
mainly dedicated to the community and there must be documented evidence of community activities.
Page 2

The community as defined in the application is dispersed geographically and across an array of kids-related
individuals and entities, including all the categories listed in the previous section. According to the application(Section 20a):“There are many organisations dedicated to the kids community. Major international ones include
UNICEF, Save the Children, Free the Children, Big Brothers Big Sisters, Boys & Girls Club andmany more…They all have presence around their globe, and to address their own causes. Major
causes that concerns children include adoption and fostering, education, human rights, disability,
social care, child protection, health as well as other welfare. The community is very active and thedifferent organizations hold regular activities around the world.”
While acknowledging this definition, the Panel has concluded, based on its research, that there is no entity
mainly dedicated to the entire community as defined by the applicant in all its geographic reach and range ofcategories. Research showed that those organizations that do exist represent members of the definedcommunity only in a limited geographic area or only in certain segments within the community. While there
are many organizations dedicated and relevant to children (e.g. Save the Children, UNICEF), the community
as defined by the applicant is not organized. This is because the community includes parents, educators andthird-sector organizations, which do not come together under a single umbrella organization.
According to the AGB, "organized" implies that there is at least one entity mainly dedicated to thecommunity, with documented evidence of community activities.” An “organized” community, according to
the AGB, is one that is represented by at least one entity that encompasses the entire community as definedby the applicant. There should, therefore, be at least one entity that encompasses and organizes individuals
and organizations in all four categories included in the application. Based on information provided in theapplication materials and the Panel’s research, there is no entity that organizes the community defined in theapplication in all the breadth of categories explicitly defined.
The Panel determined that the community as defined in the application does not satisfy either of the two
conditions to fulfill the requirements for organization.
Pre-existence
To fulfill the requirements for pre-existence, the community must have been active prior to September 2007
(when the new gTLD policy recommendations were completed) and must display an awareness andrecognition of a community among its members.
The community as defined in the application was not active prior to September 2007. According to section
4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook, the CPE process is conceived to
identify qualified community-based applications, while preventing both “false positives” (awarding undue
priority to an application that refers to a “community” construed merely to a obtain a sought-after genericword as a gTLD string) and “false negatives” (not awarding priority to a qualified community application).
The Panel determined that this application refers to a “community” construed to obtain a sought-aftergeneric word as a gTLD string, and that the application is attempting to organize the various groups
mentioned in the documentation through a gTLD. The proposed community therefore could not have been
active prior to the above date (although its constituent parts were active).
The Panel determined that the community as defined in the application does not fulfill the requirements forpre-existence.
1-B Extension
0/2 Point(s)The Panel determined that the community as identified in the application did not meet the criterion for
Extension specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the AGB, as the application
did not fulfill the requirements for size, nor demonstrate the longevity of the community. The application
received a score of 0 out of 2 points under criterion 1-B: Extension.
Size
Two conditions must be met to fulfill the requirements for size: the community must be of considerable size
and must display an awareness and recognition of a community among its members.
Page 3

The community as defined in the application is of considerable size, both in terms of geographical reach andnumber of members. According to the applicant (Section, 20A):“Children and youths represent approximately 25% of the world population, or 2.5billion…There isno geographical constraints to the community but members enter and leave with consistency andstability. There is an unlimited longevity as babies are still born and teenagers will grow past 18.
Besides individuals (kids under 18), youth organisations, especially child-led initiatives are key
members of the community. A mere estimation from online charity databases from Hong Kong,
United States and United Kingdom add up to at least 4,300 significant charity organisations thatserve the best interest of kids.”
However, as previously noted, the community as defined in the application does not show evidence ofawareness and recognition among its members, as required by the AGB.1 Therefore, it fails the second
criterion for Size.
The Panel determined that the community as defined in the application therefore only satisfies one of thetwo conditions to fulfill the requirements for size.
Longevity
Two conditions must be met to fulfill the requirements for longevity: the community must demonstrate
longevity and must display an awareness and recognition of a community among its members.
According to the application (Section, 20A):“The kids community is a dynamic one. While there is a clearly defined age of children, thecomposition of the community and its needs changes with time and may continue be evolving. As
such, this is a sizable community with a considerable longevity and most important of all, the needfor dynamically evolving advocacy to address changing needs of the community.”
The Panel acknowledges that as a constituent group, kids have a long history and future and that many partsof the defined community show longevity. However, because the community is construed, the longevity ofthe defined community as a whole cannot be demonstrated. According to section 4.2.3 (Community Priority
Evaluation Criteria) of the AGB, the CPE process is conceived to identify qualified community-based
applications, while preventing both “false positives” (awarding undue priority to an application that refers toa “community” construed merely to a get a sought-after generic word as a gTLD string) and “false negatives”(not awarding priority to a qualified community application).
The Panel determined that this application refers to a proposed community construed to obtain a soughtafter generic word as a gTLD. As previously stated, the community as defined in the application does nothave awareness and recognition among its members. Failing this kind of “cohesion,” the community definedby the application does not meet the AGB’s standards for a community. Therefore, as a construed
community, the proposed community cannot meet the AGB's requirements for longevity.
The Panel determined that the community as defined in the application does not satisfy either of the two
conditions to fulfill the requirements for longevity.
Criterion #2: Nexus between Proposed String and Community
0/4 Point(s)2-A Nexus
0/3 Point(s)The Panel determined that the application did not meet the criterion for Nexus as specified in section 4.2.3(Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the AGB. The string does not identify or match the name of the

1As stated previously, according to the AGB, “community” implies “more of cohesion than a mere commonality ofinterest…There should be: (a) an awareness and recognition of a community among its members…” Failing suchqualities, the AGB’s requirements for community establishment are not met.
Page 4

community as defined in the application, nor is it a well-known short-form or abbreviation of thecommunity. The application received a score of 0 out of 3 points under criterion 2-A: Nexus.
To receive a partial score for Nexus, the applied-for string must identify the community. According to the
AGB, “‘Identify’ means that the applied-for string closely describes the community or the community
members, without over-reaching substantially beyond the community.” In addition to meeting the criterion
for “identify”, in order to receive the maximum score for Nexus, the applied-for string must match the nameof the community or be a well-known short-form or abbreviation of the community.
Because the community defined in the application is a collection of categories of individuals andorganizations, and because there is no single entity that serves all of these categories in all their geographic
breadth, there is no “established name” for the applied-for string to match, as required by the AGB for a fullscore on Nexus.
While the string identifies the name of the core community members (i.e. kids), it does not match or identify
the other categories of members: (2) charities, non-government organizations and government institutions
that work on the well-being of children; (3) parents and educators; (4) educational institutions, organizations
and operations that are primarily serving children. For example, parents of children are not commonly
known by others as “kids”, nor does the word “kids” closely describe parents. Given the range of individuals
and entities potentially included in these categories, it is of considerable size.
The Panel determined that the applied-for string does not match or identify the name of the community as
defined in the application, nor is it a well-known short-form or abbreviation of the community. It therefore
does not meet the requirements for Nexus.
2-B Uniqueness
0/1 Point(s)The Panel determined that the application did not meet the criterion for Uniqueness as specified in section
4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the AGB, as the string does not score a 2 or a 3 on Nexus.
The application received a score of 0 out of 1 point under criterion 2-B: Uniqueness.
To fulfill the requirements for Uniqueness, the string must have no other significant meaning beyond
identifying the community described in the application and it must also score a 2 or a 3 on Nexus. The string
as defined in the application cannot demonstrate uniqueness because it does not score a 2 or a 3 on Nexus. It
is therefore ineligible for a score of 1 for Uniqueness. This is based on the Panel’s determination that theapplied-for string “.Kids” does not identify the whole breadth of the community as defined in theapplication. Therefore, since the string does not identify the community, it cannot be said to “have no othersignificant meaning beyond identifying the community” (emphasis added, AGB). The Panel determined that theapplied-for string does not satisfy the condition to fulfill the requirements for Uniqueness.

Criterion #3: Registration Policies
3/4 Point(s)3-A Eligibility
1/1 Point(s)The Panel determined that the application met the criterion for Eligibility as specified in section 4.2.3(Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the AGB, as eligibility is restricted to community members. The
application received a maximum score of 1 point under criterion 3-A: Eligibility.
To fulfill the requirements for Eligibility, the registration policies must restrict the eligibility of prospective
registrants to community members. According to the applicant, this requirement is met by verifying
registrants’ participation in one of the defined community member categories:““Parents” and “children” themselves, while are part of the community, their community
membership for eligibility in .kids domain name registration, are based NOT as individuals but ascommunity organizations or members of such organizations within the community as Children
Rights and Children Welfare organization (charities, NGOs, etc.), Children-Led groups.
Furthermore, kids themselves in most cases will not be able to register a domain name as aPage 5

registrant, the Children Right, Children Welfare and Children-Led groups are envisioned to registerdomain names potentially on their member’s behalf.”
The Panel determined that the application satisfies the condition to fulfill the requirements for Eligibility.
3-B Name Selection
1/1 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application met the criterion for Name
Selection as specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook,as name selection rules are consistent with the articulated community-based purpose of the applied-for TLD.
The application received a maximum score of 1 point under criterion 3-B: Name Selection.
To fulfill the requirements for Name Selection, the registration policies for name selection for registrants
must be consistent with the articulated, community-based purpose of the applied-for gTLD. The applicant
has included in its application several name selection rules that are consistent with its community-based
purpose, which is to “create a kids friendly Internet space”:“In the earlier community Sunrise phase, name selection is restricted to names corresponding to thechildren centric organizations, NGOs and initiatives, and at the standard Sunrise ⁄ TMCH phasenames corresponding to registered trademarks and legitimate marks and prior rights holders.
“In the Landrush and Go Live phases, registrants can self-select their .kids name of choice. Yet since
the domain name is the first manifesting point of kids to the Internet to ensure the kids-friendlinessin all aspects, the domain string itself will also be considered as part of the content and subject to theadherence of the Guiding Principles above. In other words, domain name that contains any
inappropriate content (i.e. words or phrases) as regarded in the Guiding Principles will be consideredin violation of the Guiding Principles.”The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application satisfied the condition to fulfill therequirements for Name Selection.
3-C Content and Use
1/1 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application met the criterion for Content and
Use as specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook, as
the rules for content and use are consistent with the articulated community-based purpose of the applied-for
TLD. The application received a maximum score of 1 point under criterion 3-C: Content and Use.
To fulfill the requirements for Content and Use, the registration policies for content and use must be
consistent with the articulated, community-based purpose of the applied-for gTLD. The application includes
several content and use requirements, all of which are consistent with its community-based purpose to“create a kids friendly Internet space”:“1) Strictly adhere to the UNCRC principles in the provision of content and services under the .kids
domain;2) Content, including the domain name itself, and services provided through the .kids domain must
be appropriate for children under the age of 18 and must not include any materials related to:- Gambling- Illegal drugs- Pornography & Obscenity- Violence- Alcohol- Tobacco- Criminal Activities;3) Illegal content is strictly prohibited (including but not limited to trafficking, substance of abuse,phishing, copyright infringement, and other illegal content as defined by the laws of the country forwhich the registrant and⁄or the sponsoring registrar resides); and,
Page 6

4) Registrants pledge to use best efforts basis to offer kids friendly content and services (i.e. content
that are more easily comprehendible for kids) on the .kids domain…
The DotKids Foundation, along with children information experts, will further develop guidelines
for registrants in the creation of kids-friendly content. For example, the use of kids-friendly
language, graphics and presentation formats.
Under the guidelines developed by The DotKids Foundation, children are entitled to the freedom toexpress opinions and to have a say in matters affecting their social, economic, religious, cultural andpolitical life.”
The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application satisfied the condition to fulfill therequirements for Content and Use.
3-D Enforcement
0/1 Point(s)The Panel determined that the application does not meet the criterion for Enforcement as specified in
section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the AGB. The application does not provide
specific enforcement measures and coherent and appropriate appeals mechanisms. The application received ascore of 0 out of 1 point under criterion 3-D: Enforcement.
Two conditions must be met to fulfill the requirements for Enforcement: the registration policies must
include specific enforcement measures constituting a coherent set, and there must be appropriate appeals
mechanisms. The applicant outlined policies that include specific enforcement measures for enforcing its
policies, including a complaint-response system. However, the application does not reference a dispute
resolution process. The Panel determined that the application satisfies one of the two requirements for
Enforcement and therefore scores 0 points.
Criterion #4: Community Endorsement
3/4 Point(s)Support for or opposition to a CPE gTLD application may come in any of three ways: through an applicationcomment on ICANN’s website, attachment to the application, or by correspondence with ICANN. The Panelreviews these comments and documents and, as applicable, attempts to verify them as per the guidelines
published on the ICANN CPE website. Further details and procedures regarding the review and verification
process may be found at http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe.
The table below summarizes the review and verification of support and opposition documents for the
DotKids Foundation Limited application for the string “.KIDS”.
Summary of Review & Verification of Support/Opposition Materials as of 13 February 2016
Total Received andReviewed

Total Valid for
Verification

Verification
Attempted

Successfully
Verified

Application
Comments

43

0

0

0

Attachments to20(f)2

22

21

21

9

Correspondence3

3

2

2

1

Grand Total

68

23

23

10

2 The panel reviewed 2 attachments that contained 22 individual letters.
3 The Panel reviewed 3 pieces of correspondence that contained 2 individual letters of support.

Page 7

4-A Support
1/2 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel has determined that the application partially met the criterion for
Support specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook, as
there was documented support from at least one group with relevance. The application received a score of 1out of 2 points under criterion 4-A: Support.
To receive the maximum score for Support, the applicant is, or has documented support from, therecognized community institution(s)/member organization(s), or has otherwise documented authority torepresent the community. In this context, “recognized” refers to the institution(s)/organization(s) that,through membership or otherwise, are clearly recognized by the community members as representative of
the community. To receive a partial score for Support, the applicant must have documented support from atleast one group with relevance. “Relevance” refers to the communities explicitly and implicitly addressed by
the application’s defined community.
The Community Priority Evaluation panel has determined that the applicant was not the recognizedcommunity institution(s)/member organization(s), nor did it have documented authority to represent thecommunity, or documented support from the recognized community institution(s)/member organization(s).
The panel has not found evidence of a single such organization recognized by all of the defined community’s
members as representative of the defined community in its entirety. However, the applicant possesses
documented support from groups with relevance; their verified documentation of support contained a
description of the process and rationale used in arriving at the expression of support, showing theirunderstanding of the implications of supporting the application. The Community Priority Evaluation Panelhas determined that the applicant partially satisfies the requirements for Support.
4-B Opposition
2/2 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application met the criterion for Opposition
specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook, as theapplication did not receive any relevant, verified opposition. The application received the maximum score of
2 points under criterion 4-B: Opposition.
To receive the maximum score for Opposition, the application must not have received any opposition of
relevance. To receive a partial score for Opposition, the application must have received opposition from, at
most, one group of non-negligible size.
The application did not receive any letters of relevant and verified opposition. The Community Priority
Evaluation Panel determined that the applicant satisfied the requirements for Opposition.
Disclaimer: Please note that these Community Priority Evaluation results do not necessarily determine thefinal result of the application. In limited cases the results might be subject to change. These results do notconstitute a waiver or amendment of any provision of the AGB or the Registry Agreement. For updated
application status and complete details on the program, please refer to the AGB and the ICANN New
gTLDs microsite at <newgtlds.icann.org>.

Page 8